Letters

Static Hard Copy, Or Online Texts?

I just read your article on encyclopedias ("In a Digital World, Encyclopedias
Strive for Relevance," Jan. 8, 2003). Do you really believe that
having a printed copy of a text, something that could be out of date in
a week, is better than having access to reliable, online resources that
can be researched in real time by an individual with critical-thinking
and problem-solving skills?

The paranoia of the over-40 generation has for years been
preoccupied with "kids roaming free on the Internet." In my experience,
students today deserve a lot more credit than they are given. They
should not be generalized as a group of evil-seekers. They are, in
fact, a network that works together amazingly well.

Students invented the Internet; they will certainly influence its
future. That shouldn't surprise anyone—or, for that matter, scare
anyone into feeble attempts to keep young people away from it. We'd be
a lot better off teaching them how to use the Internet, and how to
distinguish the good information from the bad. I think it's long since
time that we taught students about trust and responsibility, by
example.

Teaching young people that printed information is better than what
they can find through online resources will do nobody any good,
particularly not future employers. Teaching students critical thinking
is much more important than teaching them how to look something up in a
static, hard-bound book.

Ray BordwellChicago, Ill.

Essay Is Seen as A Covert Attack

To the Editor:

Frederick M. Hess' essay "What Is 'Public' About Public
Education?" (Commentary, Jan. 8, 2003) is a shopworn and not very
cleverly camouflaged brief for compelling all citizens through taxation
to support nonpublic, predominantly sectarian schools that commonly
practice forms of discrimination in admissions, hiring, and curriculum
content that would be intolerable in real public schools.

Like most advocates of vouchers or their analogues, Mr. Hess does
not acknowledge what should be obvious: Such plans would escalate
educational costs, seriously damage the teaching profession, transform
education into sectarian and ideological indoctrination, and fragment
our school population along religious, class, ethnic, linguistic, and
other lines.

Thirty-five years of state referendums and opinion polling have made
clear that Americans reject Mr. Hess' voucher push by about 2-to-1. His
views are particularly out of place in this era of state and federal
budget crunch. We need to improve education, not destroy it.

Edd DoerrPresident
Americans for Religious Liberty
Washington, D.C.

To the Editor:

Why would you chose to publish an opinion essay by a right-wing
scholar from a conservative think tank (the American Enterprise
Institute) that essentially bashes public education?

Has Frederick M. Hess ever taught a day in his life? He certainly
doesn't write like he has a clue of what he is talking about, except to
parrot talking points from the privatizers. Couldn't you have found
somebody who could write about public schools and their purpose without
spouting Cold War-sounding garbage about public schools being "state
run" or "governmental"? In truth, they are "public" because they are
taxpayer- funded, like the police, fire departments, and municipal
garbage collection.

Frankly, I am sick of reading distortions from people working in
these "think tanks" whose real purpose is to abolish public education
altogether. Many of these conservative propaganda institutes represent
those wealthy interests who do not believe that most people should have
access to the means of upward mobility.

Shame on Education Week for publishing this tripe.

Susan NunesReno, Nev.

Bush Plan Places Burden on Schools

To the Editor:

Having "no child left behind" is a wonderful ideal for teachers to
hold. Teachers and counselors have had that dream for many years.
George W. Bush, however, is merely coining a phrase to mark his tenure
as president as a pro-education term. What he really plans to do, it
seems to me, is add more testing to an already crowded public school
calendar ("Can the Bush
School Plan Work?," Commentary, Dec. 4, 2002).

For instance, in the state of Missouri, we're already participating
in a state assessment program (grades K-10), which is tied to
accreditation and state funding. For test scores to meet the levels of
improvement called for, teachers have to spend most of their teaching
time focused on the state assessment objectives that make up the
subject-oriented test battery. And now, President Bush wants to require
more testing.

Not only will this increase lead to more children being left behind,
but we will, I believe, see higher dropout rates and greater recourse
to home schooling here in Missouri. These numbers already have
increased substantially since the Missouri Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education initiated the current statewide assessment program,
with its implications for accreditation and funding. Our district is
experiencing a lot of transient movement among students right now due
to family divisions, and that makes the statewide assessment outcomes
inconsistent for these students.

Maybe Mr. Bush needs to address other reasons why children are being
left behind, such as the lack of parenting skills, responsibility, and
common sense. The president seems to be placing the whole burden of
"leaving no child behind" on the schools, overlooking who and what else
influences children. While I like his definition of success (no child
left behind), he's not being realistic, as we educators all know.

Paul CameronSte. Genevieve Middle School
Ste. Genevieve, Mo.

Abuse Potential Of ADHD Treatment

To the Editor:

You note in a News in Brief item that Strattera, the brand name of a
new treatment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, works
differently from currently available stimulant medications by
"targeting a different neurotransmitter in the brain" ("FDA approves New Drug to Treat
Attention Problems," News in Brief, Dec. 11, 2002).

ADHD is generally characterized by inattention, impulsivity, and
hyperactivity. In many cases, stimulant medications, which work by a
mechanism that inhibits the reuptake of two neurotransmitters
(norepinephrine and dopamine) believed to play a role in ADHD, help
children with the disorder focus and ignore distractions. This makes
them better able to pay attention and to control their behavior.

In contrast, Strattera is classified as a "selective reuptake
inhibitor," which works only on norepinephrine. In the absence of
direct comparative studies with stimulants, the recommended standard of
care according to leading experts such as the American Pediatric
Association and American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, it
remains unknown whether Strattera will be able to match the proven
efficacy of these medications. Research demonstrates that about 80
percent of children with ADHD who are treated with stimulant
medications improve their functioning.

Your news item also addresses the area of abuse and diversion of
ADHD medications. I believe it is important that your readers know that
different stimulant medications and different formulations of these
medications have different abuse potentials.

The potential for stimulant abuse among ADHD and non-ADHD patients
is a serious concern. Careful selection of a stimulant therapy,
together with close monitoring, can ensure both treatment compliance
and minimization of abuse potential.

A Double Standard For Test Criticism?

To the Editor:

It's strange that Chester E. Finn Jr., the president of the Thomas
B. Fordham Foundation and a former assistant secretary of education in
the Reagan administration, invokes David C. Berliner's previous
opposition to high- stakes testing as part of the basis for finding
fault with the recent Arizona State University reports on testing's
efficacy ("Reports Find
Fault With High-Stakes Testing," Jan. 8, 2003). After all, it's the
same Mr. Finn who was a former founding partner of Edison Schools Inc.,
the nation's largest for- profit school chain. As such, he hardly
qualifies as a dispassionate critic of standardized testing as a gauge
of instructional effectiveness.

It's also perplexing when Mr. Finn cites the difficulty of
controlling for policy changes during the period that the authors of
the reports were trying to measure the effects of high-stakes testing.
Why is he mute about the changes in socioeconomic status that often
took place in the lives of students during the same period? Aren't
these as important in affecting student performance?

There's a transparent double standard at work in Mr. Finn's
criticism that undermines his argument.